Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[Tony.London Suburbs]

..

[SeanMacGabhann]

He is - he's a gent. With a twinkle in his eye teh last 2 times he has spoken to me

But Huguenot's point is the reverse - which white comic could play to a mostly black club audience?

I'm not sure I agree with him that there aren't any mind you

[Keef]

Not sure if this should be a new thread, but I'll try it here first.

Last night I heard moral maze on Radio 4, and they were talking about the proposed opening of all black schools, where black kids would be taught by black people about black issues. The arguements for included things like, it will improve their self identity and self respect.

I'd not heard about this before last night, and don't know how likely it is, but surely it would be a total disaster!?!?!?

Of course people need identity, but surely we are all living together in this country, and we don't need to be seperated in to different groups, and surely this will be a huge step back! As I said above, I believe that the way to beat racism is to make the differences go away, not make them even more obvious!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Absolutely right Keef!

I suspect it's another thread as well - but until we get booted off...

I haven't been to school in a looooooooooooooooooong time, and never in the UK, so I'm not sure how the curriculum deals with the empire, slave trade and so forth. I imagine after decades of "political correctness gone mad", it probably doesn't glorify it but I wonder how black kids learn the lessons and if that plays a part in the call for seperate schools? (which would still be a bad idea)

That's a thought that has just occurred so feel free to correct me

[Moos]

Agree, new thread I think!

I agree with you both, but I'll play devil's advocate to get things going.

It's been argued in recent years that children do better in single-sex schools. (I'm saying 'argued' because I haven't seen statistics, so if you don't agree, feel free to pitch in!) The points made are 1) girls do better without boys because boys are louder and more disruptive and take up more of the teachers' time and 2) boys do better without girls because the gap in performance between boys and girls is now becoming so prevalent that it is actually discouraging boys, and to be seen to work hard and do well is becoming 'girly'.

We know that black boys overall get the lowest exam results of all groups in Britain, with Asian girls doing best. Ergo there's a gender issue, and a culture issue. So if we extend the 'boys' argument above, would black children perhaps have a better chance in schools where there is no way to end up streamed by race?

Hmm. Not really convincing myself there, but I did my best. It's something of an argument but has a lot of holes and supposition, and there are unrelated counter-principles that I consider more important. Oh well. Over to you.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

October is always Black History Month in all schools.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I've started a new thread to discuss this one

here

[James]

Just saw Huguenot's post and it seemed so nasty and ignorant I had to reply.

>>I'm thinking that comparing the gay community to the black community is outrageous hyperbole. It's like Christiano Ronaldo comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. Gay people don't live in poverty stricken ghettos on the edge of society. There are no gay apartment blocks in North Peckham. There was no gay-trade across the Atlantic where only one third of the gays survived the journey

This really saddens me. So there are no poor gay people? Has it ever occurred to you that might be because they are too terrified to come out for fear of being beaten senseless? Do you really believe that Peter Mandelson is a good reference for the average gay man? That's a bit like saying "Poor black people? Nonsense! What about P Diddy and all these rappers in Bentleys?" Your stereotyping is extreme, and proves my point that lack of visibility in the media results in a stereotypical, distorted perception of gay people. Yes, gay rich people have it good. But what about poor gay people?

You also seem unaware or unwilling to believe that gay people have been persecuted throughout history - and it continues today in many countries across the world. I am amazed that you are ignorant of this. As for your point about the slave trade - "Well you haven't been enslaved so it doesn't count." How childish and distasteful.

Again, you illustrate my argument beautifully by suggesting that gay people are disproportionately wealthy. What evidence do you have for this? Have you heard of Cornwall police's homophobic attitude towards poor & destitute gay youngsters? Thought not. You didn't read it in your newspaper therefore it does not exist to you. The only gays you see are Graham Norton and Peter Mandelson, therefore most/all gay man are like this.

Why do you choose a shallow, image-obsessed footballer to represent gay people? So this is what we all are? Again, mindless stereotyping which you wouldn't DARE to do to black people.

I'm amazed that certain people keep twisting this into saying that homophobia is worse than racism or something... I have never said this. My point was very clear but I should have known that this would be hijacked. Go back and reread the initial post.

Finally I have to say I am quite deflated and saddened by the attitudes of some people on this forum. Ranging from disbelief that homophobic attacks are a serious crime or that homophobia itself is damaging at all to the suggestion that you might be able to change your sexuality anyway so it's your own fault. That old chestnut about those "bloody gays, why don't they just shut up and stop whining."

I have suffered homophobic abuse in public on more than one occasion. My partner has been gay bashed, as have several of my friends. Incidentally, none was kissing or holding hands or anything in public. The suggestions that this might not be anti-gay but "anti-narcissist" baffle me. So gay people are narcissists? Another textbook 1950s bit of stereotyping. Scary and ridiculous! I will have to ask the people concerned whether they were "parading their sexuality" (again, the short skirt/rape analogy rears its ugly head).

Racism and homophobia are twin evils as far as I'm concerned. But some of the attitudes displayed on this forum seem to prove my point that we are much further along tackling the former than the latter. Many seem familiar - they remind me of the prejudice towards black people in the 70s and 80s.

Thank goodness for people like Sean

[SeanMacGabhann]

James I feel the need to counter that a tiny bit - I can understand why you might assume everyone is agin you - but to be fair to the general level of posting on here, I think there is more than a small amount of devil's advocacy going on. With Huguenot you can add more than a little "mischief" making as well

Yes it detracts from the point you are trying to make but I suspect in the bigger picture, most people posting on this thread are on your side. If we start name-calling and attacking people it'll turn into a slanging match... Your case is strong enough for you to rely on it

[James]

True - but again, the mischief shows that people just don't take homophobia seriously enough. We wouldn't be having this debate about racism in this day and age.

I suppose I'm just disappointed at people's lack of empathy. I marched against the war in Iraq beause I believed it was wrong. I don't want to get into an argument about the whys and wherefores (that's for another thread and maybe a bit out of date now) but I think humanity is all about speaking out for and defending people who are different to you.

It kind of saddens me that people retreat into a kind of tribalism where it's all about me, me, me and looking after your own.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

But Huguenot's point is the reverse - which white

comic could play to a mostly black club audience?>

I'm not sure I agree with him that there aren't

any mind you

Can't think of any? Can't think of any YT'S?

there's..um...thingemebob and don't forget whatsisisname....and,also....

Black Guys lurve their White Comedians,many a time a Black friend has said to me "What a jolly jape! What a card that ***** is!:))"..."He's a real joker!">:D< "I've got to hold onto my sides as they are splitting at theantics of these White cats"

Frankly surprised you can't list all these White comedians-you have thousands to choose from after allB)

[*Bob*]

I'm on your side, James (as tbh I think most people actually are, despite the usual rapid slide into over-polarised argument).

But 'you' (as in 'gay men in general' - which I appreciate may not be you specifically but..) do seem to want it all your own way, and I think it's this that irritates people sometimes.

You don't want anyone else to say 'gay' as a comedy put-down, but you want to be able to say it yourself - including to your straight friends if you feel like it.

You're happy to crack cock jokes with.. well.. gay abandon.. but reserve the right to get uppity if straight people crack jokes about gay men and cocks.

You don't want to be stereotyped as flamboyant and overly-sexualised yet every year tens of thousands of you march through various towns and at least half the throng behave in a flamboyant and overly-sexualised manner (I go myself so have plenty of first-hand experience).

I don't think these are unfair observations.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

Finally I have to say I am quite deflated and saddened by the attitudes of some people on this forum. Ranging from disbelief that homophobic attacks are a serious crime or that homophobia itself is damaging at all to the suggestion that you might be able to change your sexuality anyway so it's your own fault. That old chestnut about those "bloody gays, why don't they just shut up and stop whining

In all fairness James, I just don't think as many people have encountered casual homophobia as they have casual racism. Also, when you live, socialise, and work with a mainly intelligent and liberal section of society, homophobia quickly drops off your radar. The gay community has it fairly easy in London and it can be quickly forgotten that this isn't the case once you venture out into the provinces (SHUDDERS). Where I grew up it was, and still is, impossible to be openly gay, not because you'd be called a queer or a fag but because you'd get your head kicked in.

On a more contentious note, I completely agree with bob about Pride where a sizeable minority attending seem hell-bent on living up to every negative stereotype people can have about the gay population.

[citizenED]

I'm on your side too, James, but am wary of posting this because I fear you will not see it as not totally supportive.

the trouble is that this all started on that other thread when you belittled Muffintop's experience of being racially abused on a train and went on to suggest that you being called a "fa**ot" was far worse. In that sense you set the parameters of the debate and allowed people to make judgements on the subtle differences between grades of abuse. I agree with you that homophobia is bad. I don't happen to agree that in society at large, homosexuals have it worse than black people. I don't necessarily agree that that homosexuals have to suffer more casual homophobic comments than black people suffer casual racist comments.

Let's make a subtle point. Kids in school habitually use "gay" as a term of derision and are therefore acting in a homophobic manner. But these are kids in school, following the herd or keeping their heads down as they work through the shit that society and adults throws at them as the forge through to become adults. It is not their well-considered political point of view. People on this forum are intelligent agents, putting forward their well-thought through opinions. Yet you seem to judge those kids view as more important than those expressed here. I would beg to differ with you on this. The view on here have been generally supportive of the view that there is an issue with homophobia in society. I'd actually find that reassuring.

[Huguenot]

I see what you're saying James, but I may have failed to make my point well. I'm not saying the gay community doesn't have a hard time, and I sympathise with your concerns. I don't want you to feel I'm being homophobic. I'm not saying there aren't poor gay guys, or victims of attacks.

However, in order for the gay community to claim discrimination (i.e. being singled out) then they have to be disproportionately represented in the disadvantaged groups you cover.

- Are the gay community more or less likely to suffer violent crime than the community as a whole?

- Is the proportion of gay guys in senior business roles larger or smaller than the proportion of gays in the greater community?

- Does the gay community have higher or lower average earnings than the national average?

- Is the gay community disproportionately represented in residential areas of need?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I have suspicions that in at least three of these examples the gay community is actually better off than the national average.

If that is the case, then I'm not dismissing your concerns, but I do feel that limited resources would be better directed at those who are worse off than the gay community.

If however, the gay community is suffering genuine disadvantage in these areas, then I'd be the first to leap to their support.

BTW I'm not sure that homosexuality has always been oppressed, I understand it was considered the height of good taste by the Romans at least?

[cdonline]

I am not sure if it is a case of being disadvantaged. Homophobia is an irrational fear that sometimes leads to attacks, bullying or in some cases, murder. Whether that person is well to do or not has little to do with it, I would have thought.

[Moos]

One of the issues here is that we are having 2 different debates.

James' original post specifically asks

there's still masses to do to confront homophobia in society, in schools especially; that we're some way behind compared with racism. She singled out the use of the word "gay" as a slur - the fact that this has been deemed by the BBC and others as acceptable (if it was a racist term of abuse it would not be tolerated).

and he's been continuing to discuss that point.

Others have taken the debate more widely to compare the levels of disadvantage and prejudice that gay people suffer as distinct from non-white people.

I'm not saying that's wrong or that a thread can't change direction. But I'd say that some of the misunderstandings between posters on the thread have been caused by having a different argument from one another.

[Cassius]

Romans, Ancient Greeks and the Persians to name a few - plus a few Old Testament references (although veiled)

[James]

Moos that is a very good point you've raised. As I keep repeating, I'm not saying that one is worse than the other. I'm saying that we seem to be a bit less advanced in tackling homophobia.

All this business about us gays "parading our sexuality" at Pride, being lewd and overtly sexualised reminds me once again of how certain black people are stereotyped. You could say the same thing about certain elements of the Notting Hill carnival.

But we all acknowledge that for every black "yoof" causing trouble there there are many more decent, law abiding black citizens weary of the stereotypes. Likewise, for every sleazy clone in bumless leather trousers there are many more of us just getting on with our lives in a quite dull and normal way.

We are the 'invisible' ones - and therein lies the problem. This is why people stereotype gay people so much.

I would just like to point out that I can't stand musicals, Judy Garland or Madonna*. I do not own any PVC trousers. I like cars (especially old Citroens), 60s films and alternative music. I think I sould more like an East Dulwich cliche than a gay one but there you go...

*Not that there is anything wrong with anyone who does!

[pk]

citizenED Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> the trouble is that this all started on that other

> thread when you belittled Muffintop's experience

> of being racially abused on a train and went on to

> suggest that you being called a "fa**ot" was far

> worse.

i think that this is right, i posted a little on that thread (before giving up) and read the first post on this thread as saying (in not so straightforward words) 'intelligent black woman diane abbott agrees with me therefore i was right' (perhaps a little harsh)

[David Mc]

Well the Persians have changed their tune. Today, it results in death: check out http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm or http://beirut.indymedia.org/ar/2005/07/2999.shtml or google "iran homosexuality" and take your pick of the wide choice.

Veiled OT references? Well, wherever they might be, I think they're pretty much cancelled out by the blatantly homophobic (not to mention misogynystic and generally misanthropic) preachings of Leviticus.

The Bible (particularly the OT) is the 2000+ year old cousin of the Daily Mail and the Sunday Sport all rolled up into one vile explosion of hatred, bigotry and stupidity.

Yet people still choose religion? Well - fluff it up, promise eternal life and hey - all those people with AIDS deserve to die in pain and yes the planet can cope with all those children that you can't avoid because some wanker in Italy says contraception is a sin.

Oops - maybe got a little OT.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

All this business about us gays "parading our sexuality" at Pride, being lewd and overtly sexualised reminds me once again of how certain black people are stereotyped. You could say the same thing about certain elements of the Notting Hill carnival.

But we all acknowledge that for every black "yoof" causing trouble there there are many more decent, law abiding black citizens weary of the stereotypes. Likewise, for every sleazy clone in bumless leather trousers there are many more of us just getting on with our lives in a quite dull and normal way.

We are the 'invisible' ones - and therein lies the problem. This is why people stereotype gay people so much.

See, this is where you become tiresome. You change what are fairly measured posts and make it sound like an attack on the gay community. Nobody was suggesting that the fetish clad, attention-seeking minority at Pride were typical of the average gay person, just that it doesn't help to persuade the detractors that there is nothing deviant in same sex relationships. Doesn't matter which way you swing, if you go out in public dressed like that people will think you're weird.

[mightyroar]

there are some very interesting well thought out posts on here. And then there's Huguenot.

as cdonline pointed out, it's not about economic status, but cultural and social status.

this is a society where homosexuality was illegal for hundreds of years, it's only relatively recently been decriminalised.

and then marginalised. and now starting to become mainstream. It's actually only 5 years since the despicable clause 28 was repealed. There have been other more positive changes, of course civil partnerships and the change to adoption and IVF laws to make things more inclusive. But this all so recent!

I'm also amazed that so many people on this thread think that stonewall's report into homophobic bullying is so trivial. (I'm not entirely sure that anyone actually read the case studies)

of course kids get bulllied, for many different reasons. But when that bullying is reinforced by the whole school, teachers, and in the home, and on the radio........thats when we use the word endemic. and see it as a real problem, just as racist bullying was seen, and is now dealt with (within schools at least).

Here's an example for you: a young teenage boy I know thinks that the word 'gay' he uses (often in school) to describe things that are crappy and lame (that gay car, that gay jumper etc...) is not the same word 'gay' that applies to his own Auntie. Now i've explained to him that it's not a wild coincidence that the two words are the same he's thinking about it a bit more. But why didnt one of his teachers stop him before now?

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I see what you're saying James, but I may have

> failed to make my point well. I'm not saying the

> gay community doesn't have a hard time, and I

> sympathise with your concerns. I don't want you to

> feel I'm being homophobic. I'm not saying there

> aren't poor gay guys, or victims of attacks.

>

> However, in order for the gay community to claim

> discrimination (i.e. being singled out) then they

> have to be disproportionately represented in the

> disadvantaged groups you cover.

>

> - Are the gay community more or less likely to

> suffer violent crime than the community as a

> whole?

> - Is the proportion of gay guys in senior business

> roles larger or smaller than the proportion of

> gays in the greater community?

> - Does the gay community have higher or lower

> average earnings than the national average?

> - Is the gay community disproportionately

> represented in residential areas of need?

>

> I don't know the answers to these questions, but I

> have suspicions that in at least three of these

> examples the gay community is actually better off

> than the national average.

>

> If that is the case, then I'm not dismissing your

> concerns, but I do feel that limited resources

> would be better directed at those who are worse

> off than the gay community.

>

> If however, the gay community is suffering genuine

> disadvantage in these areas, then I'd be the first

> to leap to their support.

>

> BTW I'm not sure that homosexuality has always

> been oppressed, I understand it was considered the

> height of good taste by the Romans at least?

[James]

>>Nobody was suggesting that the fetish clad, attention-seeking minority at Pride were typical of the average gay person, just that it doesn't help to persuade the detractors that there is nothing deviant in same sex relationships. Doesn't matter which way you swing, if you go out in public dressed like that people will think you're weird.

Firstly, I don't go out in public like that! Again, we get the "You people" treatment, just like black people used to get routinely. "Why don't you people just...?"etc. Yawn. you sound like a third-rate tabloid columnist.

Secondly, why should I (or anyone gay, for that matter) have to persuade people that I am not "deviant" or "weird" in order to be treated equally? Does a black person have to persuade you that they are not a gangster or a drug dealer? Of course not - if you suggested that everyone would give you a good telling off for racist stereotyping. Not so if you take cheap shots with gay stereotypes. Yet again we see how instructive my comparison is.

Oh and by the way, pk and Citizen - Muffintop said that she overheard a man saying to his friend "She's pretty for a black girl." I have been followed by a gang of kids shouting "F*cking batty man" in a menacing way at me. Which do you think is more severe?

Now before the usual suspects jump in and scream "Oh you're saying homophobia is worse than racism, it's not a competition" etc etc. I AM NOT. Please do not twist my words.

I am saying that BOTH ARE EQUALLY BAD but fewer people dare to be openly, menacingly racist these days than to be openly, menacingly homophobic. How many black people do you know who have been followed by a gang of kids screaming racial abuse? This is extremely rare these days. Where it does happen, the media pick up on it - and rightly so. But when a gay teen was brutally murdered in a homophobic attack in Liverpool, there was no coverage AT ALL in the mainstream national media.

Which is an indication of how we are further behind at tackling homophobia than racism, as Diane Abbott was suggesting.

I don't know how much more clear I can be than this.

[Ted Max]

DPF: Nobody was suggesting that the fetish clad, attention-seeking minority at Pride were typical

James: Again, we get the "You people" treatment

Are you deliberately misunderstanding?